POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

However, that is an erroneous deduction due to the fact that the Prophet Muhammad's status in Islam is higher than a companion. A prophet according to Islam is infalliable, and others aren't. It is noteworthy to mention that the tradition of wearing turbans are usually the adorning of the white and black color. So a "real" jihadist (an invented term by MSM to strike terror in the hearts of non-Muslims) would know which one to wear. In terms of conquests, such as that of al-Fath (conquest of Makkah, or Mecca ), the Prophet Muhammad wore a black turban. Osama and the Taliban got it right though.

That "red" bandana was perhaps Willie Nelson's. tongue.gif

Of course it's planted evidence.

Sinewy,

Yes, of course it's planted. It's untouched and almost brand new appearance was a dead give away before even getting into the significance of the color red in terms of Islam. More like the gang colors of the "bloods" who originated in south central Los Angeles. They wear red bandanas like the one being paraded around. Might as well have been a blue bandana like the "crips" (another street gang) wear from the same part of L. A. Both gangs have gone national since their inception. They specialize in drug trafficing, prostitution, violence, gun running and protection rackets. Not exactly what I'd call "holy warriors."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't "jihad" refer more to "the struggle" than "holy war" as is purported by American MSM? More twisted facts to support and be complicit with the current criminal regime in Washington D.C. from what I've read.

Yes, I am puzzled as well. I didn't know they had the bloods and the crips in shanksville. B)

Jihad has many meanings and usages. Often the MSM sensationalize it to fit a government theory. Jihad does not mean specifically "Holy War" as it is often portrayed to be in MSM where you see "radical" Muslims wanting to kill all non-Muslims. Jihad like you stated means struggle, exertion, to feud against one's self, specifically for the betterment of one's soul. So jihad is a form of mental and spiritual exercise one does in order to achieve goodness in morals, mannerisms, ethiquettes towards oneself, others, and society as a whole. Often this type of jihad is known as the jihad-un-Nafs (the jihad of the nafs, soul).

Jihad can mean Qital (fight), and most classical scholars of Islam agree with this, specifically when it is required to do so. This form of Jihad needs specific conditions and criteria to be fulfilled before it can be implemented. It can be either offensive or defensive. The offensive jihad can only be applied when a legitimate authority rules the Muslim state (often termed as a Caliphate). It is done for the mere purposes of removing injustices and oppression. The defensive jihad can be applied by individuals who are being oppressed, beaten, threatened in their homes, lands, work, and anywhere it seems fit. In both circumstances of jihads, no innocent life may be taken or killed, meaning no fighting against non-combattants, no women or children, no fighting against the elderly, vegetations water supply may not be destroyed. These above examples of exemptions in fighting are stated in specific texts, but more can apply to the use of ijtihad (deductive reasoning) due to the changing circumstances of life, time periods, history, etc...The Qur`an specifically mentions explicitly that to take one innocent life is similar to killing all of humanity. This is something that the MSM doesn't speak of because their prime intent is a smear campaign and wanting to taint all Muslims as "fanatics", savages, monsters who are blood thirsty for "infidels", and warmongers.

This form of jihad (Qital) has literally been "hijacked" by the followers of the Wahabis/ Salafis. The British did a fine job of this by help forming the Saudi state and eventually destroying the Islamic caliphate. The Brits with the new cults help and Pan-`Arabism, destroyed the already weakening Ottoman Islamic state. For their help, and as a result and purposefully strategized by the British and other colonialists, the new `Arab states were formed along with new translations and interpretations of Shari`ah law allowed to progress and propagate. These radical groups who emerged were purposefully exploited by the upper echelons of those who play the game "within a game. Yes, these groups appear masonic, and there is evidence for it. These Wahabi/Salafis as there is evidence in the past and even present are puritanical and misguided. They believe that all other Muslims are misguided, and at times apostates, and that their group is the "saved" one. With the Saudi emerging and attaining wealth, these groups flourished more and took the limelight. The CIA, MI5, ISI, Mossad, other intelligences became involved with these groups for mere exploitation. They were granted many favors in terms of receiving the best of educations in the west due to this relationship the west has with these Gulf "wahabi" states. I will get back to this point later if I have time.

In terms of geo-politics, the Afghan resistance against the Soviets was also indicative of these relationships. The GID of Saudia `Arabia working hand in hand with the CIA and ISI shipped `Arabs of all over the world of the Salafi/Wahabi ideology into the fertile soil of Afghanistan. Remember in the MSM, the fighters both the local Afghans and the `Arabs were termed as "Freedom Fighters" or Mujahidin (the right translation is that Mujahidin, or Mujahid, singular form, is one who fights or does jihad). Later on, this term "freedom" got sensationalized once more after 9/11 as this time the U.S. was trying to protect "their" freedoms against those, the Afghans and `Arabs in Afghanistan, that were pursuing it in `80s-90s. Quite interestingly, "Operation Enduring Freedom" was named. It has such a theatrical spin to it, that it makes me laugh at the sheer stupidity of people who buy into all this. The purpose of this is merely trying to show you that these groups, Salafis/Wahabis, were being exploited not only for the Soviet War, but later on, they were going to be escapegoats and the apparent "antagonists" of the west after the war had ended. This hypothesis of mine came to fruition after 9/11 happened. They became the "new" enemy. With the GID and ISI recruitment of more, the west indeed had a "database", al Qa`eda, of patsies to serve roles. the 9/11 hijackers were patsies recruited by the CIA/GID/ISI and given safe haven into the U.S. They were given visas shelter, food, clothing, U.S. military training at naval bases, in other words, a comfortable life. No wonder you heard or read in the media that the Saudi families were escorted immediately after 9/11 from the U.S., the Saudi embassy issuing an "apparent" polemical defense in terms of playing the mistaken-identity- hijacker-card with the media, the ISI-Atta connection being ignored, and Musharraf keeping his job and saving his country from being attacked.

There is more to this issue, than the mere semantics and pseudo lingo usages such as that of "jihadists" or "holy war", but for now, I highlighted the main points.

Is there any proof that it belonged to one of the hijackers ?It could have been worn by a passenger as well.It could have been in the luggage.It could have been lying in the field before the plane crashed. (that is my guess )

Does the governement have DNA-evidence that a hijacker wore this ?Do they have the receipt or creditcard-slip of the purchase of this bandana ?

I cannot understand how this bandana in any way what so ever proff the hijacking of UA 93 by moslim-extremists.Or why it was used as evidence in the Moussaoui-trial.

regarding the color, the real problem is that the bandanas worn by "shahids" (martyrs) usually has arabic writing (at times religious text and at others it identifies affiliation to a particular group/party) written on it. the kind found and/or alleged to have come from the wreckage of "flight 93" were not muslim regardless of their colors. in fact for a time u could purchase the exact same brand of red (and blue or black) bandanas at 7-11's through out the eastern united states. these days that same brand is still available at sears or at army surpluss stores.

out of personal curiosity, i did a search of images for "jihad" or "suicide bomber" or "suicide terrorist". i found that many of these "martyrdom" head-wraps (they arent really bandanas afterall) come in many colors (a fairly popular color scheme was gold on black):

but in all cases, there is either arabic prayer or some other text written upon these head-wraps. after looking at the many pics, my guess is that specific colors identify particular groups of origin. BUT there isnt a single picture out there of a "jihadist" or "terrorist" wearing an AMERICAN made, "western style" bandana. it seems to me that wearing an american-made bandana (instead of a muslim-made headwrap) would defeat the anti-infidel protocol of muslim extremists. they wouldnt dare suicide themselves and arrive at the gates of allah wearing "made in the usa" bandanas, now would they?

eta: even the movie "united 93" tried to depict more realistic "muslim-looking" headbands, NOT bandanas:

why do you think that is? could it be for the sake of realism? even the makers of that movie knew how ludicrous and UNREALISTIC-looking it would be to have their ficitional hijackers wearing cowboy/construction worker/surfer-style bandanas.

too bad whoever put the trial "evidence" together didnt follow suit. then there would at least be one less fantastic claim to swallow. note some (or many) of the links may now be dead, this was written at least 2 years ago, but you can still find examples of muslim headwraps (for lack of a better word - i dont know any jihadists personally so i cant ask one what they call them damn things) by googling "suicide bomber" or "jihad".

regarding the color, the real problem is that the bandanas worn by "shahids" (martyrs) usually has arabic writing (at times religious text and at others it identifies affiliation to a particular group/party) written on it. the kind found and/or alleged to have come from the wreckage of "flight 93" were not muslim regardless of their colors. in fact for a time u could purchase the exact same brand of red (and blue or black) bandanas at 7-11's through out the eastern united states. these days that same brand is still available at sears or at army surpluss stores.

DRG had an interesting quote in "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited" about the red bandanas (also posted at the following link); and that is that the red bandana thing is a Shi'a Muslim tradition, while the followers of Bin Laden are principally Sunnis.

Also found on the ground, according to the government’s evidence presented to the Moussaoui trial, was a red headband.59 This was considered evidence that al-Qaeda hijackers were on Flight 93 because they were, according to some of the phone calls, wearing red headbands. But besides being absurd for the same reason as was the claim about Jarrah’s passport, this claim about the headband was problematic for another reason. Former CIA agent Milt Bearden, who helped train the Mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan, has pointed out that it would have been very unlikely that members of al-Qaeda would have worn such headbands:

[The red headband] is a uniquely Shi’a Muslim adornment. It is something that dates back to the formation of the Shi’a sect. . . . [I]t represents the preparation of he who wears this red headband to sacrifice his life, to murder himself for the cause. Sunnis are by and large most of the people following Osama bin Laden [and they] do not do this.60

We learned shortly after the invasion of Iraq that some people in the US government did not know the difference between Shi’a and Sunni Muslims. Did such people decide that the hijackers would be described as wearing red headbands?